[astrodust]

By that definition nobody creates technology since all they're doing is iterating on work done by other people.

He may not have written code or laid out circuits, but the work he did is extremely important in the process of creating technology. He wasn't just a promoter, he was also a shaper, he would steer the engineering team towards the types of solutions he was looking for and push them to achieve beyond what they would ordinarily do.

Having a vision of some kind of technology and then driving a team towards that goal is, undeniably, "creating technology".

[lutusp]

> By that definition nobody creates technology since all they're doing is iterating on work done by other people.

So learn about science. Einstein wasn't "iterating" when he created the special and general theories of relativity -- these theories were very far afield from the physics of the day, and entirely original.

Charles Darwin wasn't "iterating" when be began to think about the fact that Galapagos finches from different islands had different beak sizes and shapes, and what that might mean.

Galileo wasn't "iterating" when he saw those four little stars that seemed to follow Jupiter around in the sky, and what they might teach us about Jupiter, and about earth.

Michelson and Morley tested the ether theory in their eponymous experiment, and their test failed. At the time, no one understood why. Decades later, Einstein explained why and replaced the prior theory without any help.

> Having a vision of some kind of technology and then driving a team towards that goal is, undeniably, "creating technology".

You just tried to equate a bus driver with a scientist.

Steve Wozniak created technology, Steve Jobs sold it to people. Please learn the difference between creators and promoters -- Wozniak didn't need Jobs to create a computer, but Jobs needed Wozniak (and many other similar people over the years, many of whom I knew personally) in order to have something to promote.

[astrodust]

Einstein was iterating, that's the thing. Without the massive foundational work done by others, their efforts large and small, he would never have been able to prove anything. Where would he have been without Newton? Without the people who created the math he employed? Without those who made important contributions to his theories, without which he might've floundered endlessly?

His insight was powerful, but like Steve Jobs, having an idea is one thing, proving it mathematically and experimentally takes considerably more work than one individual can possibly do in a lifetime.

While the achievement of individuals of that sort is significant, it's very easy to ignore the less visible people that were hugely significant in the formulation of these ideas.

Your own argument is working against you here. Was Steve Jobs "iterating" when he created NeXT? The iMac? When he defined what the iPod was? Or the iPhone?

I think you seriously under-estimate how difficult it is to have a vision for a type of technology and work relentlessly towards that goal over a span of decades. That's not a bus-driver following a pre-defined route, that's someone charting their own course, one that, in the case of Steve Jobs, broke tons of rules and challenged convention every step of the way.

Just as relativity is "obvious" now, to be taken for granted, so is the iPhone, yet both of those things completely transformed their respective worlds.